aggregate-ci-tests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'statistical computations and grouping'. It does not contradict annotations, but fails to elaborate on behaviors like required time constraints or result format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, aggregation logic) and lack of output schema, the description feels incomplete. It does not explain what the aggregated result looks like or how groups are returned. However, schema descriptions for parameters are thorough, partially compensating.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already documented in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool aggregates CI test data with statistical computations and grouping, which is specific and distinguishes it from other tools like search-ci-tests. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling aggregate tools like aggregate-ci-pipelines, relying on the resource name 'CI test' for distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search-ci-tests for non-aggregated data or aggregate-ci-pipelines for pipeline data. No when-not or context is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.